S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006
6. The learned Counsel for 4th respondent Sri H.C.
Shivaramu has submitted that, when they have
received the complaint, they have made the spot
inspection and after considering the ground reality
of that area, the request of the 5th respondent
has been considered. Therefore, no error or
irregularity was committed by the 4th respondent
in issuing the licence to the 5th respondent. The
said submission made by the learned Counsel for
4th respondent is liable to be rejected at threshold
for the reason that, on a careful reading of the
communication sent by the Karnataka State
Pollution Control Board, Mandya, dated 24th
January, 2004, to the 5th respondent, as referred
above and the 4th respondent being the
Competent Authority, it is duty cast on them to
get the correct position of the spot before
considering his request, as to whether the said site
comes within the residential/commercial/industrial
zone or not. But the 4th respondent, without
obtaining NOC from the Town Planning Authority,
Mandya and without taking clearance certificate
from the Regional Office of the Karnataka State
Pollution Control Board, Mandya, has proceeded to
pass the resolution contrary to the mandatory
provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act,
1964 and its bye-laws. Therefore, the manner in
which the 4th respondent has proceeded to pass
the resolution/order is not sustainable at any
stretch of imagination.